When people say, “This is the way to do it,” that’s not true. There are always many ways, and the way you choose should depend on the current context. You can’t solve today’s problems with yesterday’s solutions. So when someone says, “Learn this so it’s second nature,” let a bell go off in your head, because that means mindlessness. The rules you were given were the rules that worked for the person who created them, and the more different you are from that person, the worse they’re going to work for you. When you’re mindful, rules, routines, and goals guide you; they don’t govern you.

Because I am undertaking a major project, I needed a reminder of the importance of the incremental as I move forward in the direction of (I hope, successful) completion. For this reminder, I looked to Dr. Judy Willis. A couple of years ago, I took a several-day training from her on the neuroscience of learning—and blogged about it, of course, here.

Helping children keep records and make (or fill in bar graphs such as those you can get or make on websites such as http://www.onlinecharttool.com)of their ongoing progress can support them with a visual model similar to the video game feedback so they see that their efforts do lead to success and they have the power to build and build their achievement level. Creating progress graphs shows children their incremental goal progress in a concrete way to mimic the incremental progress feedback provided by getting to the next level on a computer game. The additional benefit is to show them that their effort toward their goal results in progress.

Of course those visual memorializations of progress can be motivating for us, too. That's the piece of the motivation puzzle on which I needed a refresher! Now onward and upward, armed with my progress-principle tools of incremental advancement, movement, and momentum.

If you want to support people, including yourself, in making changes or accomplishing goals, read The Progress Principle. The simple message: Research shows that if we can see our progress, no matter how small, we are motivated to keep on the path towards the change or goal. I can't tell you how many times I have recommended the book, or how many times people have read the book and then sent me a hearty "thank you."

A related technique comes from, of all people, the comedian Jerry Seinfeld. It's called "Don't Break the Chain" and is decribed at lifehacker:

I finally decided to give Jerry Seinfeld's productivity secret a try. It's more commonly known as "Don't Break the Chain," and the concept is simple: spend some amount of time doing a desired activity every day and, when you do, cross off that day on a calendar. This creates a chain of Xs showing your progress. If you don't do your specified task on one day, you don't get an X and that chain is broken. It seems almost too simple to work, but it's allowed me to accomplish so much more than I ever thought possible.

And here's an app to support you in not breaking the chain: Wonderful Day.

If you have not already tried harnessing the progress principle, I urge you to give it a try.

Note: One of many reasons I am a believer in the value of the progress principle (other than that I have seen it work for myself and others) is because it is compatible with some of the solution-focused techniques, such as scaling. I have blogged about solution-focused approaches in the past, e.g., here, here, and here.

Some of us set goals or make choices based on what we don't want to happen, what we want to move away from; others of us are moved by what we want to attain, or move towards. In any given situation, some people are away-from aroused while others are towards propelled. This away from (prevention)/towards (promotion) preference is called regulatory focus; I have blogged about it before.

While doing some research on zombies and other kinds of monsters, I kept thinking of regulatory focus. If we learn from stories (see my last post which is about whether stories teach), then perhaps our regulatory focus would give a clue as to what kinds of stories are most edifying for each of us. Which stories are most influential are likely not one-size-fits all since we are not monolithic. The type of story that will motivate is probably situational, too: Brian may be motivated by a story about how he doesn't want his life to turn out when looking at finances, but by the story of someone who got it right in the arena of health.

Approaches such as Appreciative Inquiry and Solution Focused seek to find out what has worked in the past and move towards the future with those successes or assets in mind. Their stories don't invite or include monsters from the past. These methods seems to be towards/promotion focused and the stories are, too. The approaches are growing in popularity and who would argue with their spotlight on the positive?

In a significant sense, monsters are a part of our attempt to envision the good life or at least the secure life. Our ethical convictions do not spring fully grown from our heads but must be developed in the context of real and imagined challenges. In order to discover our values, we have to face trials and tribulation, and monsters help us imaginatively rehearse. Imagining how we will face an unstoppable, powerful, and inhuman threat is an illuminating exercise in hypothetical reasoning and hypothetical feeling.

When we seek to teach through narrative or story, should we include a mix of tales? Both of monsters or mistakes and of pioneers or progress? Look at what could go or has gone wrong, along with what can or has gone right? What do you think?

Many of us know firsthand that the knowledge economy values how well we use our minds more than how many things we make each hour. It’s ideas we need. Invention. Innovation. Creativ- ity. That’s the fuel of our rapidly changing global economy, yet the work world still largely operates on old notions of productivity: work faster, think faster, and use as many tech tools as you can to increase your efficiency. People skills, even in this age of “emotional intelligence,” are more expected than cultivated. And the idea that the workplace could (and should) be a place where people flourish and develop sets heads nodding in agreement, but are we really making that happen?

After teaching executives in MBA programs about mindfulness for over a decade, I’m convinced that productive human action is about much more than getting stuff done. My students and I have tried to explore the underlying drivers of real productiv- ity, which go way beyond better, faster information technology. It seems to us now that beyond cloud computers and brilliant smartphones, the secret to productivity lies within and between us. It’s about a calmer, more open and undistracted mind, greater self-awareness, and an enhanced capacity for self- transformation—not to mention disciplined passions and stronger human relationships.

This isn’t exactly a new idea. Long before it be- came a topic at sold-out Silicon Valley conferences, mindfulness was identified as a business need. It just didn’t go by that name. ...

On Wednesday, October 24, HMS and HSPH Professor Atul Gawande applie[d] his observations from the fields of sports, music, schools, and medicine, to a discussion of how different professions produce top-level performers.

"...if leaders ... experience a heightened sense of control—a psychological factor known to have powerful stress-buffering effects—leadership should be associated with reduced stress levels."

That sentence is taken from the abstract of a new study of stress levels in leaders. Perhaps, instead of implementing stress reduction measures, organizations should be focusing on promoting the employee's sense of control?

More authority means less stress, say Stanford and Harvard psychologists

In a study of high-ranking government and military officials, Stanford psychologist James Gross and a Harvard team found that a higher rank was associated with less anxiety and lower levels of a stress hormone.

BY MAX MCCLURE

"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" is that rare thing – a Shakespearean quote embraced by the world of management. The high-powered but perpetually tense leader is a trope from Wall Street to the Pentagon. The idea of "executive burnout" has inspired a cottage industry of stress management directed toward government and corporate leaders.

But the top seat may be more comfortable than leaders have been suggesting. A study from Stanford psychology Professor James Gross and Jennifer Lerner, a professor of public policy and management at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, suggests that leadership positions are, in fact, associated with lower levels of stress.

The paper appeared today (Sept. 24) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Stress metrics

"We live as social beings in a stratified society," Gross said. "It's our relative status in a group that disproportionately influences our happiness and well-being."

Specifically, a growing literature suggests that more power is associated with less stress. The Whitehall studies of health in the British civil service showed that higher governmental rank was strongly correlated with lower mortality rates. Stanford biology professor Robert Sapolsky's measurements of the stress hormone cortisol in baboons showed lower levels of the hormone in high-ranking troop members.

The new Stanford-Harvard study looked at both cortisol measurements and self-reported anxiety levels within a rarely studied group: high-ranking government and military officials enrolled in a Harvard executive leadership program.

Although evaluating stress is itself complex – cortisol levels and reported anxiety are not necessarily correlated – the researchers found

Critical thinking is very important for reaching good decisions, whether in management and leadership of self or others; or in conflict resolution, from personal to global. Just what is critical thinking? Click to watch a short video that addresses that question.

When we engage in critical thinking, we seek out and are guided by knowledge and evidence that fits with reality, even if it refutes our cherished beliefs

Critical thinkers cultivate an attitude of curiosity [the "c" in CARVE] and eagerness to widen their perspective and broaden their knowledge, and they are willing to do the work required to keep themselves properly informed about a subject

What's the MI spirit? A definition of MI which mentions that spirit is found in a fascinating article published in Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy (link here) comparing MI with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) :

MI is a “client-centered directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence”. As a therapeutic style, MI does not follow a protocol for teaching clients skills to change but instead provides a way of interacting with clients so that their self-expertise can be utilized in order to facilitate change. In this sense, MI is not a stand-alone therapy delivered with the intention to accomplish behavior change. Instead, it prepares an individual for change by increasing contemplation and commitment to change. The fact that MI is a therapeutic style has made it possible for it to be readily used in conjunction with other therapies to increase motivation to change.

Derived from Carl Rogers’s client-centered therapy approach, MI combines a supportive and empathic counseling style with a method of intentionally directing clients toward changing dysfunctional behavior. MI emphasizes creating a collaborative relationship and affirming the client’s autonomy to change. Indeed, Miller has proposed that these aspects of MI may be the most important to the change process because they allow for the expression of love in the form of understanding and unconditional positive regard. Therapists elicit motivation for change by drawing on the client’s goals and values. The foundation of MI is the context of a working alliance between client and counselor, what is known as “MI spirit". This spirit (1) is collaborative rather than authoritarian, (2) evokes the client’s own motivation rather than trying to install it, and (3) honors the client’s autonomy.

Here's a fun way to categorize yourself and others, at least for a short while. Although this typology has no scientific validity, like many of the other self-report assessments such as Myers-Briggs, it is a good reminder that we are not all the same, and that OSFA (one size fits all) is an ineffective and sometimes risky assumption. (Click to read about some of the problems with personality assessments.)

In my research of educational game design, I came upon the typology; it's Bartle's Taxonomy of Player Types. The four types are achiever, explorer, socializer, and killer. They were developed to describe the different ways people approach games and can be compared to the four suits in a card deck:

An easy way to remember these is to consider suits in a conventional pack of cards: achievers are Diamonds (they're always seeking treasure); explorers are Spades (they dig around for information); socialisers are Hearts (they empathise with other players); killers are Clubs (they hit people with them).

Another way to see these four:

Killers and achievers act. Killers act on other players and achievers act on the world.

Socializers and explorers interact. Socializers interact with other players and explorers interact with the world.

In order to find out what type you are (or, more exactly, what type you are today because these kinds of assessments are situational), take this quick test. It's fun, and, if you are like me, some of the questions